3 ms·

You could also think of it as their job to ensure the possibility of obtaining well maintained and affordable housing for the majority of citizens who are willi

You could also think of it as their job to ensure the possibility of obtaining well maintained and affordable housing for the majority of citizens who are willing and able to pay rent on time. Because if there were no eviction officers or we moved marginally towards that by having less consequential eviction there are second order effects on the market that affect all. Note I'm not saying nor am I personally convinced that that means we should have maximally punishing eviction laws or even that the ones we have are right. But you're way off the mark by not acknowledging the good they can do and calling it the most inhumance occupation you can think of when they potentially do a lot of good.

southerntofu 5y ago
We as a species had "affordable" housing long before we had police. I'd also like to point out that housing is often not well-maintained despite broad knowledge of the problem: see for example Greenfell Tower (London) or rue d'Aubagne (Marseille) scandals. Private property as a social structure does not ensure decent quality or affordable housing. If you insist on private property as a means to organize housing, then it'd probably be more reasonable and efficient to redistribute ownership widely: if you make everyone owner of their current residence, you'll find they'll take better care of it overall than some remote profit-seeking landlord who couldn't care less about mold and fissures.